I am wondering if Atheists reject the idea of the State as much as they reject other religions? The rise of nationalism, especially in the last century, has lead to the notion that the State is to be revered and all dictates handed down are to be treated as dogma. Do Atheists see the State as any other religion, or is there tacit approval since the existence of the State can be proven? The reason for this question is because I have heard the argument presented that religion has been responsible for atrocities throughout history, while little mention is made of the State’s role. It was the State that was responsible for the systematic murder of tens of millions of people in Germany, Russia, China, Vietnam, and Cambodia and numerous other countries. It was ultimately the State that fueled the “wars of religion,” such as the Crusades and the Hundred Years War. I feel that if Atheists truly profess to have no belief in religion, they would oppose the idea of an omnipotent and omnipresent State.
Posted: March 8th 2009
logicel
Lack of god belief does not have to be based on a well thought-out foundation such as noting the high improbability of god(s) along with the lack of evidence for them. Lack of god belief can stem from not wanting the competition for a person’s own secular dogma as in the case of Stalin and Pol Pot.
An atheist like myself that embraces Enlightenment Principles would always reject such states and recognize them for the liberty-robbing and spirit-crushing dangers they present.
I have no problem with religious beliefs if they are kept out of the public, tax paying sphere. But there is no way an totalitarian state can be kept out of the public sphere! In that regard, I have no tolerance whatsoever for dictatorship.
Posted: March 10th 2009
George Ricker www
Since atheism is the absence of god-belief, it does not address this sort of issue per se.
However, speaking for myself, I think there is great danger in statism. When a state assumes totalitarian control over a society, it can take on the worst features of the worst religions. Democratic governments are less likely to do so, although our experience with the Bush administration suggests democracies are not immune to such influences. The marriage of “God and Country” can bulldoze rational thought, even in supposedly free societies, when the citizenry is not on guard.
In fact, it appears that religions and governments have worked in concert for much of human history. Organized religions came on the scene at about the same time as organized states. Religions have been historically used to provide the moral sanctions used to justify the actions of states, and religions have, in return, received protection for their privileged position within a society. So there is considerable interaction between the two throughout history. That was certainly the case in the Crusades and the Hundred Years War. States may have organized the armies, but they did so at the behest of and with the sanction of religious organizations.
In answer to your question, I do oppose the “idea of an omnipotent and omnipresent State.”
Posted: March 9th 2009
SmartLX www
I do tend to see the same dangerous, unquestioning devotion in some jingoistic politicians and nationalistic action groups as I do in the religious equivalents. It’s a worry, all right.
While (unlike gods) countries are known to exist, the ideals which drive much of the state-sponsored madness you mention are pie-in-the-sky. Take for example the ultra-fair utopia communists look forward to, or of course the Thousand Year Reich. In the former case, communist propagandists have occasionally admitted that a new “Communist man” must emerge to make it happen, because communism doesn’t actually suit humans as they are today. In the latter case, Germany’s invincibility had to be permanently assured.
As for the concept of the all-powerful, all-encompassing State, it is less analogous to the concept of a god than to that of the capital-L Law. In a manner of speaking it is everywhere within certain boundaries, and its policies apply to every little thing which might happen. That said, it has no ethereal presence, and if not for the human beings within it would not exist at all. It’s simply a social convention which has been agreed upon and enforced.
As an atheist I’m happy to regard the State as an idea constructed entirely by humans, and my opinions of it follow from there. As a theist, you would not be happy to regard your god as something made up. That’s the difference.
Incidentally, blaming religious wars on States is a clever flip, but they were proudly religious States. The uniforms bore the religions proudly, all the way from crosses on the crusaders’ tabards to “Gott Mit Uns” on Wehrmacht belt buckles. While States were largely the fuel, religion was the driver.
Finally, lose the capital A. Atheism isn’t a religion, it’s not a complete philosophical school of thought and it’s not named after anyone called Athe. If it required capitalisation, then so would its opposite, theism.
Posted: March 9th 2009
Eric_PK
Strictly speaking, atheists have a variety of beliefs in this area, since all that atheists share is their lack of belief in god.
However, many – perhaps most – atheists look in question at any large organizations, and government surely fits that description.
I do think that my country right or wrong can be pretty dangerous, but I think that it works best when tied in with religion. Note that the term of derision was not “communist”, but “godless communist”, because religion is much better at establishing the us vs. them approach than pure nationalism.
I think you need to be careful when you analyze the examples you speak of.
Russia and China, for example, used nationalism as their primary driver because religion was a challenge to their power structure, but the groups in power didn’t get there because of nationalistic support, they got their through the usual sorts of power struggles you see outside of democracies. The nationalism came later, partly as a way of keeping people in line, and partly because it gave a convenient justification to disappear the others who were vying for power. The people they killed – at least initially – were very much like the winners, which is why they had to be killed to consolidate power.
Germany is a very different case. Naziism was partly about political power, but in that it wasn’t different than a lot of other political parties throughout Europe. Where is was different was it tied its nationalism to the anti-semitism that had been a feature of German society for centuries, including the noted father of the Protestant movement (also a political struggle), Martin Luther. That’s a side of Luther they never talk about in protestant churches. Because of that religious history, the Nazis had tacit support amongst most of the churches and fair amount of the population.
Without that religious component, you would still have had an expansionist Nazi party, but it would have been harder politically for them to be as extreme and they wouldn’t have been hellbent on exterminating all the Jews.
So, yes, I worry about state power, but I think it’s far worse with religious belief thrown in. Look at the history of the Bush presidency, and you’ll see what nationalism and religion can do.
Posted: March 9th 2009